PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Found5dollar

The "Portals" turns it into 3 separate buildings with covered roads between.

I think if you preserve enough of the upper structure it will still come across as one continuous building. Something like everything starting with the awnings and above should do it, and as seen here that would be enough for vehicle traffic (although I would personally be fine with a pedestrian-only approach):

[SkyPittsburgh]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

The maximum heights allowed in the Special Plan are pretty generous. So we should be agitating for something close (or at least closer) to the maximums.

I agree. And we (Pittsburghers) should also fight for more interesting styles of architecture. I always fancied something like this: (maybe a bit taller)

This is the kind of stuff proposed in the Allegheny River Green Boulevard.

[SkyPittsburgh]

Big news for Oakland!

Developer proposes housing, hotel in Oakland

By Diana Nelson Jones / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Three buildings will be demolished in the 3300 block of Forbes Avenue in Oakland this summer for a hotel, apartment, office and retail complex whose plans should be ready to present to the Planning Commission by year's end. The former Allegheny County Health Department at 3333 Forbes and two vacant homes just east of it will be demolished and replaced by a 330-unit apartment building, a 125-150 room hotel, a 50,000 square-foot office building and 5,000 square feet of retail space. An interior parking lot will accommodate 400 cars.

http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2...ng-hotel-in-Oakland/stories/201404260090

From the few pictures I saw of this plan, it will be a great addition to the area, as well as the Portal Project. I also like that they realized there is a potential for apartments as well as other things.

[Brentsters]

Originally Posted by Found5dollar

Becasue "historic" is a hollow term. Merriam Webster has 3 definitions for it, 1) famous or important in history, 2)having great and lasting importance, 3) happening or existing in the past.

We don't have to use Webster's definition or get into semantics:

The Pittsburgh Code of Ordinances, Title 11, Historic Preservation, Chapter 1: Historic Structures, Districts, Sites and Objects lists ten criteria, at least one of which must be met for Historic Designation. Describe how the structure, district, site, or object meets one or more of these criteria and complete a narrative discussing in detail each area of significance.

3. Its exemplification of an architectural type, style or design distinguished by innovation, rarity, uniqueness, or overall quality of design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship;

5. Its exemplification of important planning and urban design techniques distinguished by innovation, rarity, uniqueness, or overall quality of design or detail;

7. Its association with important cultural or social aspects or events in the history of the City of Pittsburgh, the State of Pennsylvania, the Mid-Atlantic region, or the United States;

10. Its unique location and distinctive physical appearance or presence representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community, or the City of Pittsburgh.

3,5,7, 10 were the criteria used.

[Brentsters]

Originally Posted by Urbana

I still fear that the portals will be too much of a mental barrier for foot traffic a la the railroad separating Homestead and the Waterfront (though admittedly less extreme).

Even at much less extreme comparison I don't think it holds much weight. There are very real physical barriers separating the Waterfront from Homestead. But the perceived barrier is equally as strong. Many just feel Homestead is a bad place and are scared to venture into it. The area of the Strip in question does not come with the same baggage.

[Urbana]

Originally Posted by Brentsters

Even at much less extreme comparison I don't think it holds much weight. There are very real physical barriers separating the Waterfront from Homestead. But the perceived barrier is equally as strong. Many just feel Homestead is a bad place and are scared to venture into it. The area of the Strip in question does not come with the same baggage.

Not the best example for sure. But the point stands that the portals may be hard to pull off without still alienating the river.

[BrianTH]

Hopefully they get the height variance they are seeking for that Oakland project--it sounds like they may have pre-cleared it with the City, and the local NIMBY-types might be more focused on parking issues than height per se.

[BrianTH]

Random example: this is the famed Piazza San Marco in Venice:



It is surrounded on three sides by continuous buildings:



Access into that portion of the Piazza is provided by various passages (usually called a sotoportego, and very common in general in Venice):



A sotoportego can make for a dramatic entrance into the Piazza:

[BrianTH]

By the way, I've been thinking about Stradun in Dubrovnik in connection with Smallman. It is technically a street in the old town, but it is pedestrian-only and functions as sort of elongated piazza:





The side streets are so narrow they have a similar feel to a passage (even though they are not covered):

[chiaroscuro]

Always thought that an art center like Alexandria VA's Torpedo Factory would be a good use for at least part of the terminal building.

[popstar]

Is anybody else getting blocked from Post Gazette articles unless you subscribe? That's annoying. All of the sudden I'm starting to like the Trib more... and I certainly don't like the Trib very much.

[Found5dollar]

Originally Posted by Brentsters

Quote:
Originally Posted by Found5dollar View Post
Becasue "historic" is a hollow term. Merriam Webster has 3 definitions for it, 1) famous or important in history, 2)having great and lasting importance, 3) happening or existing in the past.
We don't have to use Webster's definition or get into semantics:

Quote:
The Pittsburgh Code of Ordinances, Title 11, Historic Preservation, Chapter 1: Historic Structures, Districts, Sites and Objects lists ten criteria, at least one of which must be met for Historic Designation. Describe how the structure, district, site, or object meets one or more of these criteria and complete a narrative discussing in detail each area of significance.

3. Its exemplification of an architectural type, style or design distinguished by innovation, rarity, uniqueness, or overall quality of design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship;

5. Its exemplification of important planning and urban design techniques distinguished by innovation, rarity, uniqueness, or overall quality of design or detail;

7. Its association with important cultural or social aspects or events in the history of the City of Pittsburgh, the State of Pennsylvania, the Mid-Atlantic region, or the United States;

10. Its unique location and distinctive physical appearance or presence representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community, or the City of Pittsburgh.
3,5,7, 10 were the criteria used.

It did not receive the Historic designation under those criteria. Therefore, by your measure, it is not a "historic" structure.

as a reminder: http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/5456906-74/council-designation-terminal#axzz300u8e7rV

[BrianTH]

A couple more details:

http://triblive.com/news/allegheny/6009202-74/group-proposals-building#ixzz3001IFsKk

The Ferchill Group and MCM Co. are proposing a $36 million project that would feature 209 rental apartments, with lofts and one- and two-bedroom units, said Melissa Ferchill, chief executive of MCM Co. A 10,000-square-foot produce market would be on one end of the building. The other end would dedicate 13,000 square feet to an arts center or gallery and retail space. Two pass-throughs would be cut into the building, providing access to the riverfront where The Buncher Co. plans $450 million in development. The pass-through on 18th Street would be wide enough for two vehicle lanes, a bicycle lane and pedestrians. The one at 17th Street would be narrower.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Found5dollar

It did not receive the Historic designation under those criteria. Therefore, by your measure, it is not a "historic" structure.

To be precise, both the Historic Review Commission (3-0) and the Planning Commission (7-1) recommended historic designation. Under intense lobbying from Buncher, City Council (5-4) did not accept that recommendation.

http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/4813059-74/historic-building-commission#axzz302cOE5xU

http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/4888302-74/historic-building-designation#axzz302cOE5xU

Personally, I am pretty convinced it merited designation under the criteria in the City Code. However, if the City/URA ends up negotiating a reasonable plan with the winning bidder, then I don't think City Council's decision was necessarily harmful.

[GeneW]

Originally Posted by popstar

Is anybody else getting blocked from Post Gazette articles unless you subscribe? That's annoying. All of the sudden I'm starting to like the Trib more... and I certainly don't like the Trib very much.

The PG went to a paid subscription model last year. I think that you get ten free stories a month if you don't pay.

[Urbana]

Originally Posted by popstar

Is anybody else getting blocked from Post Gazette articles unless you subscribe? That's annoying. All of the sudden I'm starting to like the Trib more... and I certainly don't like the Trib very much.

Open it in an incognito window with Google Chrome. That gets me past the pay wall.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Hopefully they get the height variance they are seeking for that Oakland project--it sounds like they may have pre-cleared it with the City, and the local NIMBY-types might be more focused on parking issues than height per se.

I'm pretty sure outside of Schenley Farms (which is pretty far from this area) Oakland has no NIMBYs to speak of. Very, very little of Oakland is homeowner occupied, and most of what remains is (again, outside of Schenley Farms) occupied by very poor and/or elderly homeowners who are not very well organized. Even if these folks organized, they wouldn't care much about this project, as they are many blocks away.

Of course, it's possible some of the nearby businesses could raise NIMBY issues. But I'm not sure exactly which ones would care, since they all seem to have off-street parking.

[BrianTH]

There has been some NIMBYism around the Oakland Portal project:

http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2...t-Oakland-residents/stories/201303180189

[Urbana]

http://media.bizj.us/view/img/1895511/ar...orbes-avenue-facing-north-east*0x200.jpg

Here is the preliminary rendering for the health department project, it has been around for at least a year.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by Urbana

http://media.bizj.us/view/img/1895511/ar...orbes-avenue-facing-north-east*0x200.jpg

Here is the preliminary rendering for the health department project, it has been around for at least a year.

Thanks for posting this. I saw the sign with rendering on Forbes last time I was in town, but I was driving by so I didnt get a good look.

Looks pretty good... escpecially in how it eliminates the setback of the Health Dept bldg. It should really help clean up and develop that part of Forbes.